Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220888 peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-01-04 21:13 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11) > Thanks for reviewing this! Please note that to build this package you need to > build three other packages submitted (see the blocking bugs). If you would > review them as well, that would be great! I'll take care of those ones as well. :] > o buildroot: The wording in the guidelines is the `preferred' one, and it has > been discussed that we should skip or change that. In any case that should not > be a blocker. > > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2006-July/msg00167.html It was "discussed"; but no conclusion in that thread (or any similar that I can find via a brief Google search) has arisen. The consensus (with which I agree) is that using a terser BuildRoot breaks multi-user build environments and causes more trouble than it's worth. Until rpm-build (or whatever ends up carrying it) defaults to a sane buildroot (at which point we can stop putting them in our spec files entirely), we should keep what is in the Guidelines; and doing otherwise is therefore a blocker. Please fix that (in the other ones you're packaging too). Thank you. > o `redundant' BRs: They do not hurt and are also tagged as `not needed', not > `forbidden'. Especially gcc-c++/libstdc++ could be removed from future minimal > roots for an easy gain of space. It's already been removed in other > buildsystems. Understood. Thanks for the explanation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review